ISSUE: 20170929 - Re OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION Re citizenship litigations, etc & the constitution

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST my concern is the true meaning and application of the constitution.

Politicians/judges may not like to acknowledge my extensive work but let be honest about it for a
bloke who uses his own self-professed c rummy-English (not being my native language) I at least
proved to work on the long term about matters.
I was well aware way back in 2001 when I challenged the validity of the 2001 Federal election I
would be railroaded as many lawyers made clear they would not give me a chance to succeed. As
I understood it from their various comments the courts are too corrupt to allow me to succeed.
So, I made sure that I did set up a legal cased that would have ramifications for long to come
albeit the lawyers/judges involved would not realise this.
I had an obligation to know what the law was and is, regardless of the avalanche of legislative
provisions added every day. As such I turned the tables in kind. And well I waited for about 15
years to get this matter in consideration of parliamentarians who blatantly ignored it over the past
15 years! Ignorance is no excuse and those parliamentarians now in trouble may just have done
better to have addressed this issue all along while I made it a legal challenge in 2002!
QUOTE 29-2017 OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION
Registrar High Court of Australia 29-9-2017
enquiries@hcourt.gov.au
Cc: Senator George Brandis Attorney-General senator.brandis@aph.gov.au

AND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

Sir/Madam,
Further to my 17 August 2017 and 24 August 2017 correspondence I make the
following submission;
The High Court of Australia lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine matters regarding
Australian citizenship, as such this is an OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION.
As indicated previously on 4 December 2002 the Magistrates Court of Victoria at Heidelberg in
AEC v Schorel-Hlavka ordered (by consent) that the matter raised by my S78B NOTICE OF
CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS was to be heard and determined by the High Court of
Australia. As I formally objected at that time and remained throughout the proceedings to do so
that the purported Citizenship Act 1948 was unconstitutional that for all purposes and intent this
purported Citizenship Act 1948 remains to be ULTRA VIRES since it was created unless and
until if ever at all a Court were to pronounce against it declaring the purported Citizenship Act
1948 to be INTRA VIRES. This never eventuated regarding my litigation.
There is ample of court judgments that makes clear that once an objection is stated against the
validity of any legislation or any part thereof then it cannot be enforced.
Also, that any such purported legal provision under challenge cannot be enforced not only
against the objector but against no one else either. One an objection has been made then the
prosecutor not the objector must prove to the court that the legislation objected against is to be
held valid in law. The Commonwealth of Australia failed to pursue this, despite the court order it
had consented to. In both appeals held on 19 July 2006 before the County court of Victoria

p1 29-9-2017 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
exercising federal jurisdiction I pursued this matter also and the s78B NOTICE
OFCONSTITUTIONAL MATTER was and remained part of these proceedings.
The Court upheld both appeals and noted that the Commonwealth had not submitted any
evidence. The then Attorney-General Mr Rob Hulls for the State of Victoria had indicated in
writing that the state would abide by the Courts ruling. The Commonwealth in its submission
made known it would accept the courts ruling. As such none of the Attorney-Generals who were
all served with the s78B NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS did challenge my
submissions that the purported Citizenship Act 1948 was unconstitutional. As I had also made
known to the Court in 2002 that the judges of the High Court of Australia for being bias cannot
hear and determine the matter themselves and the matter would have to be heard and determined
by the Privy Council for that judges would be in a conflict of interest as to make a ruling
affecting the validity of their own positions as judges.
The book "Law Made Simple" by Colin F. Padfield, LL.B.,D.P.A.(Lond.) on page 55:
QUOTE
"The Rule against Bias. A true judicial decision can be reached only if the judge himself is impartial. This is
an obvious requirement in a court of law or a tribunal. In R. v Rand (1866) it was held that a judge is
disqualified where (i) he has a direct pecuniary interest, however small, in the subject-matter in dispute; or (ii)
there is real likelihood that the judge would have a bias in favour of one of the parties.
END QUOTE
As the High Court of Australia is the creation of the constitution then the court cannot be the
master of the constitution and its jurisdiction is to be within the confines of the constitution.
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. ISAACS.-We want a people's Constitution, not a lawyers' Constitution.
END QUOTE
HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.-
The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its Constitution,
END QUOTE

HANSARD 12-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. BARTON:
It is provided that instead of, as before, the Parliament having power to constitute a judiciary, there
shall be a Supreme Court, to be called the High Court of Australia, as a part of the Constitution-that I
believe to be an improvement-and other courts which the Parliament may from time to time create or
invest with federal jurisdiction.
END QUOTE

Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
Providing, as this Constitution does, for a free people to elect a free Parliament-giving that people
through their Parliament the power of the purse-laying at their mercy from day to day the existence of
any Ministry which dares by corruption, or drifts through ignorance into, the commission of any act
which is unfavorable to the people having this security, it must in its very essence be a free
Constitution. Whatever any one may say to the contrary that is secured in the very way in which the
freedom of the British Constitution is secured. It is secured by vesting in the people, through their
representatives, the power of the purse, and I venture [start page 2477] to say there is no other way of
securing absolute freedom to a people than that, unless you make a different kind of Executive than
that which we contemplate, and then overload your Constitution with legislative provisions to protect
the citizen from interference. Under this Constitution he is saved from every kind of interference.
Under this Constitution he has his voice not only in the, daily government of the country, but in the
daily determination of the question of whom is the Government to consist. There is the guarantee of
freedom in this Constitution. There is the guarantee which none of us have sought to remove, but every
one has sought to strengthen. How we or our work can be accused of not providing for the popular
liberty is something which I hope the critics will now venture to explain, and I think I have made their
work difficult for them. Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have provided for an
Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that Constitution; and,
therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people. We have provided for a Judiciary, which will
p2 29-9-2017 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
 determine questions arising under this Constitution, and with all other questions which should be dealt
with by a Federal Judiciary and it will also be a High Court of Appeal for all courts in the states that
choose to resort to it. In doing these things, have we not provided, first, that our Constitution shall be free:
next, that its government shall be by the will of the people, which is the just result of their freedom: thirdly,
that the Constitution shall not, nor shall any of its provisions, be twisted or perverted, inasmuch as a
court appointed by their own Executive, but acting independently, is to decide what is a perversion of its
provisions? We can have every faith in the constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of the
Constitution. It is appointed not to be above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under it; but
it is appointed for the purpose of saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the
Government and the Parliament of the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the
Constitution, they are bound to serve. What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of
this kind, enable any Government or any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions, then by slow
degrees you may have that Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the
guarantees of freedom which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense,
the court you are creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a
tribunal as will preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of
constitutional action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the
sphere of the Commonwealth. Having provided for all these things, I think this Convention has done
well.
END QUOTE
Again:
It is appointed as the arbiter of the Constitution. It is appointed not to be above the Constitution

While the Commonwealth of Australia purportedly enacted the Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) it
can however not violate the interpretation of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act
1900 (UK) as this can only be interpreted according to the Interpretation Act 1889 (UK).
As I at the time (about 15 years ago made clear) that only the Privy Council could hear and
determine the matter based upon what the constitution stands for and what the Interpretation Act
1889 stand for at the time of federation.
Indeed in the Moti B19 of 2011 case the High Court of Australia itself made clear that it cannot
judge another countries constitutional issues as that is for that foreign country to do. As such, the
High Court of Australia by this couldn't determine the matters regarding the Commonwealth of
Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) where it claims to be of a foreign power!
[PDF]JULIAN RONALD MOT! - High Court of Australia
www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/cases/b19-2011/Moti_Res.pdf
QUOTE
(b) Whether an Australian court can adjudicate upon the actions of a foreign state acting within that state's
territory.
END QUOTE
And
QUOTE
31. There is a great deal of authority to support the proposition that it is not 10 appropriate for an
Australian court to examine the question of the legality of the actions of the Solomon Islands'
Government in the Solomon Islands in deporting Mr. Moti. The principle is that courts will not
adjudicate upon the validity of acts and transactions of a sovereign state within the sovereign's own
territory: Attorney-General (UK) v Heinernan Publishers Australia Pty Ltd (No 2)36; McCrea v
Minister for Customs37 and following Mokbel v Attorney General for the Commonwealth and
Another 38 This is well established principle and it is applied in the United Kingdom (see Buttes Gas v
Hammef9 ) and in the United States of America (Oetjen v Central Leather Co.40 adopted and
approved in Heinemann). In the light of 20 this principle and its rationale it is submitted that the
primary judge was correct in declining to determine the legality of the actions of the Solomon Island
Government in deporting the appellant.
END QUOTE

YOU CANNOT SEPARATE THE LEGISLATION FROM ITS LEGISLATORS!

Where the High Court of Australia purported that the United Kingdom is a foreign power then
in my view the court had no jurisdiction to hear and determine matters as to the Commonwealth

p3 29-9-2017 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) being a constitutional enactment of the alleged foreign
power.
As the Commonwealth Parliament is a constitutional Parliament (albeit sovereign in its own
sphere) and not a sovereign Parliament then it cannot either amend the constitution or create its
own constitution.
.
HANSARD 9-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-No, because the Constitution is not passed by the Parliament.
END QUOTE

HANSARD 10-03-1891 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
Dr. COCKBURN: All our experience hitherto has been under the condition of parliamentary
sovereignty. Parliament has been the supreme body. But when we embark on federation we throw
parliamentary sovereignty overboard. Parliament is no longer supreme. Our parliaments at present are
not only legislative, but constituent bodies. They have not only the power of legislation, but the power
of amending their constitutions. That must disappear at once on the abolition of parliamentary
sovereignty. No parliament under a federation can be a constituent body; it will cease to have the
power of changing its constitution at its own will. Again, instead of parliament being supreme, the
parliaments of a federation are coordinate bodies-the main power is split up, instead of being vested in
one body. More than all that, there is this difference: When parliamentary sovereignty is dispensed
with, instead of there being a high court of parliament, you bring into existence a powerful judiciary
which towers above all powers, legislative and executive, and which is the sole arbiter and interpreter
of the constitution.
END QUOTE

Hansard 9-3-1891 Constitution convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. FITZGERALD:
Another case I understood the hon. member, Sir George Grey, to put was that be favoured the
appointment of the governor-general of the future dominion of Australia being a colonial
appointment. But as long as this country is united to the Crown of England-and I hope that it is a
very long day off indeed when it shall cease to be so-I maintain that the governor-general of the
future dominion of Australia must be the appointee of her Majesty the Queen, our sovereign, who is
the apex of that structure, and whose name we revere and respect in this colony equally as in any
other [start page 165] part of her Majesty's dominions.
END QUOTE

Hansard 12-3-1891 Constitution convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. ADYE DOUGLAS:
The governor-general must be the representative of the Queen by direct appointment from her
Majesty, and that being the case, the government will be carried on in federated Australia in the way
usually adopted now in the different colonies.
END QUOTE

Hansard 20-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

Mr. BARTON: I do not think it is a good thing under any circumstances that a judge under a Federal
Constitution, at any rate, should have anything to hope for from Parliament or Government.

Mr. KINGSTON: Hear, hear.

Mr. BARTON: Where you have a sovereign Parliament, and the judge is merely the interpreter of
the laws as they arise, and not the guardian of a Constitution in the same sense as a federal judge is, the
same circumstances remain in part; but where you will have a tribunal constantly charged with the
maintenance of the Constitution against the inroads which may be attempted to be made upon it by
Parliament, then it is essential that no judge shall have any temptation to act upon an unexpected
weakness-for we do not know exactly what they are when appointed-which may result, whether
consciously or not, in biasing his decisions in favor of movements made by the Parliament which might
be dangerous to the Constitution itself.
p4 29-9-2017 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
END QUOTE
What we therefore have is that in my sub mission not a single judge can lawfully claim to be
validly appointed to the bench not being a British subject dealing with as constitution of an
purported foreign power being the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK).
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. SYMON ( South Australia ).-
In the preamble honorable members will find that what we desire to do is to unite in one indissoluble Federal
Commonwealth -that is the political Union-"under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Ireland , and under the Constitution hereby established." Honorable members will therefore see that the
application of the word Commonwealth is to the political Union which is sought to be established. It is not
intended there to have any relation whatever to the name of the country or nation which we are going to create
under that Union . The second part of the preamble goes on to say that it is expedient to make provision for
the admission of other colonies into the Commonwealth. That is, for admission into this political Union,
which is not a republic, which is not to be called a dominion, kingdom, or empire, but is to be a Union
by the name of "Commonwealth," and I do not propose to interfere with that in the slightest degree.
END QUOTE

As the High Court of Australia can only adjudicate within the confines of the constitution itself
and only interpret the true meaning and application of the constitution and cannot introduce its
own bland of contemporary views into the constitution then it is critical that the judges when
making a decision such ass in Senator Wood, Sue v Hill (Senator Heather Hill), Senator Rod
Culleton and other litigation involving Members of Parliament that it (the judges) must be first of
members of the subjects of the British Crown who proclaimed the Commonwealth of Australia
Constitution Act 1900 (UK). If the judges were not at the time British subject then they had no
judicial authority to adjudicate as to a constitution of an alleged foreign power.
Commentaries on the Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth
Robert Randolph Garran, M.A.
QUOTE
Dr. Quick proposed to give the Federal Parliament power to make laws as to Commonwealth citizenship.
Some members thought this power unnecessary, whilst others still thought that the proper plan was to define
citizenship. On Mr. Symon's motion to reinsert a provision for protecting the rights of citizens (Debates, pp.
17801802; and see Historical Note, sec. 117) Dr. Quick proposed a definition of Commonwealth
citizenship; but this was struck out. Considerable objection being made to the use of the word citizen, the
phrase subject of the Queen resident in any State was substituted. It was after the adoption of that phrase
that the words between residents, &c. (adapted from the American between citizens, etc.) were inserted.

It appears then that the residence in a State contemplated by the Constitution is such residence as,
if combined with British nationality, would constitute citizenship of the State, in the general sense of
the term. It is not meant by this that the residence should be such as is required by the laws of the particular
State for the exercise of any political franchise, but merely that it should be of a character to identify the
resident to some extent with the corporate entity of the State.
END QUOTE

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. BARTON.

If we are going to give the Federal Parliament power to legislate as it pleases with regard to
Commonwealth citizenship, not having defined it, we may be enabling the Parliament to pass
legislation that would really defeat all the principles inserted elsewhere in the Constitution, and, in fact,
to play ducks and drakes with it. That is not what is meant by the term "Trust the Federal
Parliament."

END QUOTE
In my view it is totally irrelevant that the British Parliament may have legislated that Australians
are foreigners (aliens), this as ordinary legislation cannot overrule a Constitution Act. Hence it
cannot apply to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK).

p5 29-9-2017 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
While the Registry may so to say be under cahoots with others to disregard my writings, I for one
cannot because of this be deprived of the rights I obtained by my legal challenge and neither can
the court ignore this as doing so only means that every decision it makes involving citizenship
and so the courts own judicial position would be and remain to be unconstitutional and so
without legal force. In my view it would rather constitute what is commonly referred to as being
a KANGAROO COURT, being an UNAUTHORISED COURT. As much as anyone else,
including myself, were to sit at the bench of the High Court of Australia and purport to
pronounce judicial decisions.
Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. OCONNER (New South Wales).-
Because, as has been said before, it is [start page 357] necessary not only that the administration of
justice should be pure and above suspicion, but that it should be beyond the possibility of suspicion;
END QUOTE
In my view Senator Pauline Hanson had no position to refer Senator Roberts to the High Court of
Australia, this as the Framers of the Constitution made clear it was to be a decision of the House.
No legislation can interfere with either House constitutional right to for itself deal with such
matters, and it is beyond the powers of a Court of Disputed Returns to do so. This as it is not an
elect oral issue at all but a qualification issue for the relevant House to determine.
This document is not intended and neither must be perceived to refer to all details/issues.
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O. W. B. (Friends call me Gerrit)

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

(Our name is our motto!)
END QUOTE 29-2017 OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION

Yes, I expected all along that in time this would become a huge issue!
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL (Our name is our motto!)

p6 29-9-2017 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati